I think the topnotes have potential for a good summer flanker, but the "SUEDE" note in the base is just absolutely insultingly repugnant to my nose.
BN sales: http://www.basenotes.net/threads/300...avidoff-Bombay.
Off-BN sales (super rare CREED): http://flacon.ambaric.net/viewtopic.php?t=95
Again, my main point is that "I just want to smell good" is often not true statement and can speak of lack of understanding of one's own motives. Few examples of this in my case:
1. I've noticed that I like to like for example SMN fragrances. I don't like to like Le Male. So, for me it's not only about the product, but I about the bottle, history of the company etc. This might make no sense, but I've noticed this about myself.
2. I don't want to wear very popular fragrances like Old Spice, Tabac, AdG, Le Male etc.
3. My choice of fragrance has to do with my choice of clothes and my mood, I want them to match.
4. My choice of fragrance has to do with the nature of the event. Some are playful, some serious etc.
5. I wouldn't like to wear a fragrance that is easily recognized as feminine, such as Chanel No. 5.
I believe many who would agree with some of the above might still keep on saying that they just want to smell good. These views are not compatible. That basenotes cliche is an oversimplification. For some reason people think that saying that is a sign of integrity. It might be so in some cases; but it it's not true, it's the opposite.
I don't point this post to anyone in particular, just a general thought of an issue I find interesting. Of course it's possible that some people really have that simple relationship with fragrances.
The placebo effect is real, and it surely extends into the fragrance realm. If we expect not to like something, (or the opposite) we help make that a reality. That doesn't mean there aren't circumstances where we expect to hate something and are pleasantly surprised. But surely, the mindset we have just prior to experiencing a fragrance actually changes our experience, our perception of it.
There was a study with wines; expensive, middle of the road, and cheap. People's brains actually showed more activity in the areas indicating enjoyment and pleasure when tasting the expensive wine... the catch? They weren't necessarily drinking the expensive wine. They were just told they were. Yes, even when they lied to the people and gave them the cheap $5 wine instead of the $500 wine, they enjoyed it more than when they were told they were drinking the $5 wine. Not just a subjective report of more enjoyment, but more brain activity.
Those who think they are immune to advertising and the like always make me shake my head. The advertising has worked so well, in that case, that it's not even being noticed. (and no, an ad does not need to make you feel like you need to go out and immediately buy the product, to be successful. It's usually more about brand image than anything, and that brand image comes to play strongly, although usually subconsciously, when it's decision making time.)
I thot it was nice. Up my alley in general. Not very high on my buy list, tho.
I do enjoy my sample, tho.
For Sale: Gengis Kahn, Mona d' Orio, Penhaligons.
And I'm not saying buying into the hype is necessarily a bad thing. In the case of a sugar pill placebo that offers real pain relief? It's a damn good thing! If you derive more enjoyment from a scent based on the hype, the backstory, whatever... well, the sensation (and increase in pleasurable neurochemicals and what not) is real. So, no harm no foul. It just saddens me a bit when many good, inexpensive fragrances get the short shrift for what I believe are simply reasons of their heritage.
I think everyone should keep this in mind. Every professional perfumer went to school for 4-8 years, then apprenticed for another 2-4, and then, just maybe, gets lucky enough to work in fine fragrance. Each of these perfumers gets maybe, what, a couple of briefs a year at most to work on. Do you think they are trying to make something boring? Something bland? Yes, sometimes the brief and brand are calling for something safe, something versatile, something 'good for the office' or whatever, but surely the perfumer is still trying to put their own creative mark on the juice, within the limits of the brief. They are aspiring to make something artistic, even with paltry budgets and confining briefs. I think we should remember that when sniffing, and try to find the interesting and the novel aspects of a fragrance. Because almost every fragrance I've tried, even the 'safest of the safe' - do tend to have something unique or novel about them amidst the rest of the possibly mundane scenery.
The worst thing you can do as an aspiring fragrance head is to write off a fragrance as "just another aquatic" or "an <xyz> clone." It doesn't grow your knowledge base as an educated sniffer, and actually hinders the appreciation of fragrance as a whole, imo, by contorting it into this reductionist thing.